IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v60y2019icp100-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of ‘High’ vs. ‘Low’ rape myth acceptance on police officers' judgements of victim and perpetrator responsibility, and rape authenticity

Author

Listed:
  • Hine, Benjamin
  • Murphy, Anthony

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that officers' level of rape myth acceptance (RMA) is predictive of their case decision making and judgements towards victim-survivors. However, few studies have directly assessed the relationship between RMA and responsibility and authenticity judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Hine, Benjamin & Murphy, Anthony, 2019. "The influence of ‘High’ vs. ‘Low’ rape myth acceptance on police officers' judgements of victim and perpetrator responsibility, and rape authenticity," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 100-107.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:60:y:2019:i:c:p:100-107
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235218302800
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.08.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Bradley A. & Menaker, Tasha A. & King, William R., 2015. "The determination of victim credibility by adult and juvenile sexual assault investigators," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 29-39.
    2. Hine, Benjamin & Murphy, Anthony, 2017. "The impact of victim-perpetrator relationship, reputation and initial point of resistance on officers' responsibility and authenticity ratings towards hypothetical rape cases," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Willmott, Dominic & Boduszek, Daniel & Debowska, Agata & Woodfield, Russell, 2018. "Introduction and validation of the Juror Decision Scale (JDS): An empirical investigation of the Story Model," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 26-34.
    2. Hine, Benjamin & Murphy, Anthony, 2017. "The impact of victim-perpetrator relationship, reputation and initial point of resistance on officers' responsibility and authenticity ratings towards hypothetical rape cases," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Campbell, Bradley A. & Wells, William & King, William R., 2021. "What happens when sexual assault kits go untested? A focal concerns analysis of suspect identification and police pre-arrest decisions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Lovell, Rachel E. & Klingenstein, Joanna & Du, Jiaxin & Overman, Laura & Sabo, Danielle & Ye, Xinyue & Flannery, Daniel J., 2023. "Using machine learning to assess rape reports: “Signaling” words about victims' credibility that predict investigative and prosecutorial outcomes," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Lovell, Rachel & Luminais, Misty & Flannery, Daniel J. & Bell, Richard & Kyker, Brett, 2018. "Describing the process and quantifying the outcomes of the Cuyahoga County sexual assault kit initiative," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 106-115.
    6. Wager, Nadia M. & Goodson, Simon & Parton, Loren E., 2021. "A systematic review of experimental studies investigating attitudes towards sexual revictimization: Findings, ecological validity, and scientific rigor," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:60:y:2019:i:c:p:100-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.